Amendment to the Nuclear Proliferation Act of 2009

[Czech Slavia]

Dear colleagues, I think that we should ask a different question first, instead of asking the question who should replace Icholasen as a permanent member of the ENAA. The question is as follows, why should Icholasen be removed from the ENAA?

Despite the answer that may be given I am of the opinion that the Nuclear Proliferation Act requires an amendment. One that will allow this act to have a foresight. Instead of stating the precise titles of its members and the precise current names of the states, point two of section 2 should simply state the official shortened version of the name of the state and another point should be added stating that the Head of Government of the given country represents that state in the ENAA. This would allow the ENAA to be more flexible in respect to internal developments inside of its member states.

Before submitting an amendment I would however first like to hear the reasons for why should Icholasen be stripped of its membership in the ENAA and a potential response from a representative of Icholasen. As I would like to hear and consider the reasoning before submitting an amendment.

Václav Kohout
Councillor for Czech Slavia

[Fayrrendel]

I support Councilor Tilkanas' amendment. My government will not support Icholassen being removed as a permanent member of the ENAA, no matter how controversial the government might be. As it stands now however, the status of Icholasen is in a strange legal territory and as a result, I do not feel that Icholasen can fulfill this role at this time without their full ascension into the European Union. As a result, Ruthund will support the Empire of Inimicus as a member of the ENAA only in a provisional capacity until the question of Icholasen is resolved.

Prince-Councilor Tony Odhinazen
Councilor for Ruthund

[Vayinaod]

I think you can provide a very easy technical reason to why the UNSR or Icholasen should not be an ENAA member. It is unstable in the fact a coup, sudden change of government, whatever terminology you wish to use occurred virtually over night. It is not exactly the gold standard then for what one might call a 'stable' nuclear state. I think the UNSR should keep the legal license provided to Icholasen, if it is to be recognized as the legal successor state...however I think the content around how it came to be that state is a valid technical reason, rather than political one, for as to why it should not be on the ENAA for the present time.

I think the Empire of Inimicus would be a more appropriate state to have on the ENAA at this time, especially as the UNSR potentially retransitions into the EU.

Carita Falk
Cllr. for the Archrepublic of Vayinaod

[Istkalen]

While the Empire of Inimicus is a good option in terms of its seniority, I continue to have certain doubts in regard to its impartiality if it is to serve on a permanent basis. I do not have these same misgivings now, largely because current policy is pointing against the issues which I have; but it is certainly possible that, in the long term, over years, it might "swing in the opposite direction," so to speak, which seems, from a personal appraisal of the situation, well within the realm of possibility. Until very recently, the country appears to have taken a hard line against lefist states, refraining from engaging in diplomatic relations with several, most notably Czech Slavia, occasionally referring to what appear to be elements of their governments as "communist insurgents" in official state announcements, although perhaps I am mistaken on this point, I deeply apologize if I am.

These are completely legitimate actions on the part of the Empire of Inimicus; I do not want to cast any moral judgement on this. However, I would seriously argue that these policies, while now abandoned, should still be partially taken into account when discussing a possible position on the ENAA, for they seem to imply that some, although far, far, from all, in the government of Inimicus view leftist states as inherently violent or unstable.

While I understand that Fremet's nuclear license was granted only recently, I do not hold these same concerns regarding impartiality with them, and are presently more inclined, if it is absolutely necessary to remove Icholasen from the ENAA, to support their ascension.

Iras TIlkanas
Council Speaker and Councillor for the Republic of Istkalen

[Inimicus]

Speaker Tilkanas's point would be a valid one if we were talking about inter-state, one-to-one relations. If it were the Empire of Inimicus judging, by itself, whether to grant, say, Reitzmag, weapons of mass destruction without oversight or regulation. This is not the case. When a member of the ENAA, the only matter the Empire of Inimicus would judge is whether an applying state is stable and responsible enough to maintain a stockpile of nuclear weapons. And in doing so, the Empire's representatives would not resort to petty ideological disputes.

You may remember, Speaker Tilkanas, that our Dear and Beloved Head of State was very nearly assassinated by a rogue, communist regime, and several other high-ranking members of our Government were indeed killed. In light of this, I question whether Inimician state outlets referring to the perpetrators of this heinous crime in strong words would affect the Empire's impartiality and capability to sit on the ENAA.

The Imperial Government's long-standing status as a nuclear power and an international player in the region, as well as its recent efforts to open up diplomacy to hitherto disconnected states, show it would be ready to assume an ENAA status. If this Council deem it so, the Imperial Government would be honoured to do so.

Nicholas Benfield
Deputy Speaker

[Kingdom of Reitzmag]

As the primary proponent of this amendment, I think it's best we invite these leaders which we deem capable of carrying out the responsibilities to this chamber and allow them to give statements and to also be scrutinized and examined fairly. Apart from this, I request a debate extension for now.

Dame Yuridiana Yahontov GCC
Councilor, Kingdom of Reitzmag

[Inimicus]

With the leave of the Speaker, I shall grant a debate extension for a further 48 hours from now, until 11am GMT on 18th February 2022.

His Imperial Majesty would be more than pleased to address this Council should there be a wish for this to occur.

Nicholas Benfield
Deputy Speaker

[Czech Slavia]

After hearing the reasoning provided by Councillor Falk I am not convinced that Icholasen should be removed as a permanent member of the ENAA. There is no indication that the current government of Icholasen would be unstable. Czech Slavia will oppose any attempts to replace Icholasen's permanent membership by any other entity, not because it would oppose those entities gaining permanent membership, but because Icholasen would lose their permanent membership.

As I indicated in my earlier comment I will now propose the following amendment to section 2:

---

SECTION II. THE MAKEUP OF THE ENAA

2. The ENAA shall consist of five members, four of which will be permanent members and one three of which will be permanent members and two of which will be selected by the European Council every 12 months. This single elected member must be a non-nuclear state and will vacate their seat if they obtain nuclear weapons. All member states will be represented by their Head of Government

3. The four permanent members of the ENAA are as follows:
   a. The Duxburian Union
   b. Angleter
   c. Inquista
   d. Icholasen

---

I believe that this amendment would allow for more flexibility in a case of internal changes in the permanent member states, and their form of government is altered. As Icholasen has demonstrated recently, this can happen and we should anticipate such changes and be ready for them.

Finally I would like to say that we do not have a problem with the Empire of Inimicus becoming a permanent member of the ENAA, but only in a case where the ENAA membership is expanded and the Empire of Inimicus, or any other state, won't replace a current permanent member. If this is proposed I am ready to consider supporting such proposition.

Václav Kohout
Councillor for Czech Slavia

[Istkalen]

I will further extend debate until 21:50 GMT on 22 February 2022.

Iras Tilkanas
Councillor for the Republic of Istkalen

[Ineland]

Even though I am myself, and the government of the member state I represent, favourable to the normalisation of relations with the UNSR and the recognision of their government, I feel that the situation across the strait in Icholasen has been and continues to be too unstable. Therefore I believe that transferring the seat at the ENAA table from the leader of the UDI to the leader of the UNSR would be an unwise move. Thus I feel inclined to support Mr. Tusk's ammendment to replace the seat currently held by the Icholasian Korojaunu with one for the Inmican Emperor.

However, in light of the controversy surrounding the replacement of the Icholasian seat, I suggest that we consider this change a temporary one for the time being, with a revision of the situation in Icholasen vis à this legislation in six months time to settle on whether this change should be temporary or permanent.

Prince Charles Évere-Dancourt
Councillor for the United Principalities of Ineland

[Kingdom of Reitzmag]

Considering the suggestion of the Honourable Councilor for Ineland, I have thought of the idea of having this 3rd nuclear seat up for election at the same time as the 2nd non-nuclear seat. However, I'd be very welcome to the inputs of my fellow members here on such an idea. Until so, I will not be putting forward such an amendment to my own amendment. This is all I could say for now.

Dame Yuridiana Yahontov GCC
Councilor, Kingdom of Reitzmag

[Istkalen]

I will further extend debate to 12:00 GMT 25 February 2022, to allow Councillors to speak their final thoughts, but will not be giving any further extensions unless there is a significant change in the situation underlying the reasoning behind this proposal.

Iras TIlkanas
Council Speaker and Councillor for the Republic of Istkalen

[Inimicus]

With the permission of the Speaker, I suggest we now move to voting on Amendments.

---

Amendment I, proposed by Cllr Tusk of Spain:

SECTION 2:
d. The Korojaunu of the United Dominions of Icholasen The Archkonsul of the Archrepublic of Vayinaod The Emperor of Inimicus

---

Amendment II, proposed by Cllr Mizrachi-Roscoe of the United Duchies:

SECTION 2:
d. The Korojaunu of the United Dominions of Icholasen The Archkonsul of the Archrepublic of Vayinaod The Federation of Fremet

---

Amendment III, proposed by Cllr Lallana of Inquista:

SECTION 2:
d. The Korojaunu of the United Dominions of Icholasen The Archkonsul of the Archrepublic of Vayinaod The Korojaunu of the Union of Nicoleizian Socialist Republics

---

Amendment IV, proposed by Speaker Tilkanas of Istkalen:

SECTION 2:
d. The Korojaunu of the United Dominions of Icholasen or a successor state, or in the case of the vacancy or contention of that role, whether in the United Dominions of Icholasen or in a successor state, the Emperor of the Empire of Inimicus.

---

Amendment V, proposed by Cllr Kohout of Czech Slavia:
SECTION 2:

2. The ENAA shall consist of five members, four of which will be permanent members and one three of which will be permanent members and two of which will be selected by the European Council every 12 months. This single elected member must be a non-nuclear state and will vacate their seat if they obtain nuclear weapons. All member states will be represented by their Head of Government

3. The four permanent members of the ENAA are as follows:
   a. The Duxburian Union
   b. Angleter
   c. Inquista
   d. Icholasen

---

Please note, colleagues, that all of these amendments are exclusionary. In other words, one cannot vote in favour of multiple Amendments in this case without obfuscating the purpose of the legislation. Voting on Amendments starts NOW and ends 27 FEBRUARY AT 5PM GMT.

The Empire of Inimicus votes FOR Amendment I and AGAINST all other Amendments.

Nicholas Benfield
Deputy Speaker

[Fayrrendel]

I vote FOR Amendment IV and AGAINST all other Amendments

Tony Odhinazen
EU Councilor, Ruthund

[Spain]

I vote FOR amendment I and AGAINST all other amendments.

Donald Tusk
Councillor for Spain

[BrumBrum]

On behalf of United Duchies I vote FOR Amendment II and AGAINST all other amendments

Councillor for United Duchies , James Mizrachi-Roscoe

[Vayinaod]

On behalf of the Archrepublic of Vayinaod, I, Carita Falk, vote as follows:

FOR Amendment I
FOR Amendment IV
AGAINST All other amendments

Carita Falk
Cllr. for the Archrepublic of Vayinaod

[GANIA]

ON BEHALF OF GANIA WE VOTE IN FAVOR OF AMENDMENT 1 AND AGAINST THE OTHERS
PEDRO BORDABERRY
GANIA COUNCILOR

[Duxburian Union]

On behalf of the Union of Duxburian Dominions, I vote FOR Amendment I and against all others.

Wesley Greene
Councillor of the Duxburian Union

[Inquista]

I vote FOR Amendments III and IV, and AGAINST all other amendments.

Bp. Karinn Lallana
Councillor for Inquista